O K - Im Putting This Out There.........

[ToraToraTora]

I'm not backing it I'm not saying it's a good idea. All I'm doing is trying to find out from you what the issues are.
100% inheritance tax......no allowance.....when someone dies the government gets the lot.... discuss

[jno]

your choice when you hand it over, naomi. I've been thinking in terms of parents and children, though of course that's not always the case. If I'd dropped dead when jno jnr was a babe in arms, would the crown be entitled to my various estates, or should they pass to my spouse so he can be brought up without recourse to welfare payments? I would have thought the latter.

[naomi24]

Jno, The OP says ‘when someone dies’. I presume he hasn’t considered individual circumstances.

[douglas9401]

Mrs Windsor says no.

Non starter.

[pixie374]

//Authorjno: "I'm free to give everything I own to jno jnr while I'm alive; any parent could do the same. " - yep that's another effect along with Sharon above I think we are starting to see reason emerge from the outrage, keep going//
Not sure there's any outrage?

In my view, financially, everyone is never, and shouldn't be, equal. That would just remove any inventive and motivation to actually work or do anything. If benefits equalled work, we would all just stay home.
But, also, nobody, needs billions passed onto spoilt children or not.... while others are sleeping in cardboard boxes and nobody can see a doctor.

Clearly, it's very much a balance. The question is where to draw the line, rather than whether to.

I would suggest, inheritancewise.... 40% to biological children.... with a cap (nobody needs millions to begin with). 40% tax- for public use and 20% choice... to your children, charity, whoever you like.

[Prudie]

You are free to give what you like to your children - as long as you then live another 7 years. If you don't they will still pay inheritance tax so suggest people get on with it if that's what they want to do..
As for the OP and 100% - wicked communism isn't it?

[Ryzen]

Equity release companies would have a field day.

[pixie374]

They already are, ryzen...and I don't think anyone should have to live for 7 years either. If they are trying to avoid tax, that shouldn't be the case. If they aren't, it shouldn't matter.

[Sqad]

Nobody has handed mea windfall.

I , through hard work and sacrifices have built up financial security.

For what? To ensure a comfortable lifestyle for my partner/wife, whatever and an equally comfortable retirement.

My children do not come into this equation.

The successful children do not need a financial hand out and the unsuccessful do not deserve it.

I am happy with that as well as 100% Inheritance tax.

[Khandro]

The answer largely depends on whom you ask TTT. Those with little to pass on think it's a good idea, those with a lot tend to differ.

[Khandro]

p.s. Is that beefeater in your new avatar 'taking the knee'?

[pixie374]

Not really, khandro. Not everybody only thinks of themselves.

[Barmaid]

For those of who practice in this area almost exclusively, it would be a death knell to our livelihood!!! So no, I do not support it.

It would certainly encourage spending rather than saving which would be good for the economy.

However, I also think it would take away a right that has been part of our history for hundreds of years - the right of testamentary freedom.

Ignoring children or further generations for one minute, what about the situation where all is in the name of one spouse and that spouse dies. Is the other to be out on the street despite the wealth he or she has helped create?

Sooner or later, we will be in a situation where the state owns everything. OK, those that can do well could buy off the state, to hand it back on their death, but what is the point of that? Why would I invest my capital in an asset that is mine for my lifetime only and then reverts to the state. If one owns something outright, one is more likely to nurture and look after one's investment; if one only has what is effectively a life tenancy, why bother?

[Khandro]

pixie //Not really, khandro. Not everybody only thinks of themselves.//

Can you please explain what you mean by that?

[pixie374]

BM... I would never agree that because something is "tradition", it deserves any respect... FGM, marriage, child brides, sexism and so on.... never an excuse.

Spouses... who equally own something- would clearly be halved, if one died. And surely, given the housing situation.... it would make sense, that not everybody living alone could afford a family house?
For as long as we just go with individual preferences, nobody looks at the bigger picture, and everything gets harder for everyone.

[Zacs-Master]

Becuae the resultant inheritance goes into the economy and helps the wheels of finance turn. Giving it to the Govt would mean 50% of it would immediately be lost in red tape and bureaucracy. Stoopid idea.

[pixie374]

Khandro, you were suggesting that people's views change, according to how much they have.
I'm just pointing out, that most people don't think that way. But can look further ahead.

[pixie374]

Zacs, fully agree there is a problem with gov priorities. Unfortunately, I have e ne er been given a list to tick, on what I would prioritise my taxes to be spent on.
However.... inheritances, can be spent or saved- and over a certain amount (as I said), is excessively not needed for spending- and will not go back in.

[jno]

[i] If one owns something outright, one is more likely to nurture and look after one's investment; if one only has what is effectively a life tenancy, why bother?[i]

the child-free are presumably in this position now, but it doesn't stop them spending on their property to suit themselves. I don't buy furniture for the purpose of passing it on to my heir, I do it for myself.

[naomi24]

17.09. I would suggest that most people by far want what they have to go to their own chosen beneficiaries.

[pixie374]

Absolutely, naomi. And quite rightly. But surely, once you get to millions or billions, you would start thinking.... maybe some others need it more?